42

[gimmethemap]

I hear a lot of talk from Inmates and Wardens alike who are dissatisfied with how murderers are handled in this place, and I really do agree. Something few of us are willing to accept is that fairness in how we deal with them cannot be achieved without adding a touch of barbarity to the proceedings here.

But the more often this occurs the more I think I'd like to adopt a policy of executing murderers aboard this ship -- and this includes Wardens as much as Inmates.

And don't feed me any of that garbage about how it means nothing because they come back. Almost everyone here who has been around a while has died once. You understand perfectly well that the fact that we can return doesn't make the experience any less terrifying and painful. No matter how many times it happens to you, you're not going to convince yourself, body and mind, that everything will be all right.

Death is still the ultimate suffering in this place. The Hellish thing is that it can happen to you more than once, here.

Comments

[autistic-genius.livejournal.com]

I also have to agree that this doesn't sound like a good idea. What you're proposing, basically, is an eye for an eye.

Mahatma Gandhi remarked: "An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind."

Even though it may be hard to do in practice, certain belief systems (such as Christianity) teach individuals to forgive those who wrong them, rather than seek retribution for a wrong. Other belief systems adhere to similar concepts, such as the Taoist wu wei which encourages a wronged individual to simply accept the infraction and to take the least "resistive" action to correct it, if any action need to be taken at all. Buddhism stresses the weight of karma: one can take retributive action, but that retributive action is not without its consequences, and living on a finite planet guarantees that the suffering incurred by a retributive action will return to the individual who was wronged (as well as the one who did the wrong-doing). Some subscribe to the Golden Rule of ethics rather than any law of retaliation.

It can also be seen as an extension of the informal logical fallacy, two wrongs make a right.

...I don't think an endless cycle of killing is the answer. I think wardens need to work with their inmates and help them get over their desires to kill each other.

[gimmethemap]

By the 'Golden Rule' standard, then a person who kills is treating one life as though it has no worth and therefore should expect their life to be treated likewise. Isn't that so?

[autistic-genius.livejournal.com]

No. Not exactly. The purpose of the Golden Rule is not to kill at all; rather it is to look at an individual as yourself and try to stand in their shoes so that you don't have to resort to violence.

I can sum up the sentiment as it's held in various world views. For example, Buddhist see it as:

Putting oneself in the place of another,
one should not kill nor cause another to kill.

One who, while himself seeking happiness, oppresses with violence other
beings who also desire happiness, will not attain happiness hereafter

Whereas Hinduism states:

"One should never do that to another which one regards as injurious to one’s own self. This, in brief, is the rule of dharma. Other behavior is due to selfish desires."

And Islamic belief is:

"Woe to those . . . who, when they have to receive by measure from men, exact full measure, but when they have to give by measure or weight to men, give less than due”

And even Christianity has much to say on it:

"Do to no one what you yourself dislike." (Tobit 4:15)
"Recognize that your neighbor feels as you do, and keep in mind your own dislikes." (Sirach 31:15)
"And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." (Luke 6:31)

...if you'd like books on the subject, I can lend you some and they can teach you more about it. But, uh, I'm not sure if they're necessarily the best to start with...I'm working on my BA in Philosophy right now and they might be too dense...